Ego and Buddhism

SherabDorje

@DD:

NOW could you provide us with the definition of ego that you're working with, perhaps with some functional examples, so that we can understand your points? I really would just like to know. There have been at least two posts asking for definition. Would you do us that honor?

compassionate_warrior

Yes, but in order to wish to help someone, do you not need the notion "I" wish to help someone, or "I" am going to help someone, and therefore without gaining direct insight, is it not essential that a Buddhist has some sort of ego?

Not necessarily. There can be just the perception that someone needs help, and the spontaneous reaction to give assistance.

zidangus

This was a decent article I have just read

http://www.purifymind.com/drfu14.htm

Metta to all sentient beings

zidangus

Taken from the last link I gave. This makes most sense to me regarding ego.

"WHAT KIND OF EGO SHOULD BE DESTROYED
Now we understand the main problem of describing the “No Ego” is to make sure “Which ego” or “What kind of ego” that Buddhist wants to destroy. So what kind of ego after all the theory of “No Ego” wants to destroy?

FIRST, this ego definitely is not the so call ego in our daily life. In original Buddhist scripture, Sikyamuni Buddha also always talked about ego (“I” “Me” “My” “Myself”), for example: {Bhiksu (mendicant or almsman, one who has left home, been fully ordained, and depends on alms for a living), let me tell you clearly …., long long time ago, my past life was ….} Buddha was just like the ordinary people, used “I” so many times in his daily life. Of course Buddha knew that the “Buddhist supreme meaning” negate ego, but he still used “I”, otherwise he would become some kind of odd person.

IF we negate the ego of material world, then human cannot make living, cannot think, also cannot communicate. Therefore no matter the ego of common sense is how much illusive, we still have to admit and accept it with some degree. We can affirm that the ego which original Buddhist doctrine wants to destroy definitely is not the one (“I”) we use in our daily life.

SO, what is the theory of “No Ego” wants to destroy after all? In short, the “No Ego” wants to destroy the ego that always persist in the “five skandhas” (the five cumulations, five substances, or five aggregates) of being impermanent, changed, and vanished as a “entity of ego” that is permanent, eternal, and independent."


Metta to all sentient beings

compassionate_warrior

FIRST, this ego definitely is not the so call ego in our daily life.

IF we negate the ego of material world, then human cannot make living, cannot think, also cannot communicate.

SO, what is the theory of “No Ego” wants to destroy after all? In short, the “No Ego” wants to destroy the ego that always persist in the “five skandhas” (the five cumulations, five substances, or five aggregates) of being impermanent, changed, and vanished as a “entity of ego” that is permanent, eternal, and independent."

Thanks for addressing the matter of defining "ego" for the purpose of this discussion, zid. I don't know about the others, but this doesn't make it clear to me. Firstly, "skandha" is a Theravada term, some Mahayanists won't be familiar with it. Secondly, when I looked it up, I found that one of the skandhas was translated as "volition", among other things. Another skandha was translated as "discernment". We need both volition and discernment to function effectively in our daily life, so that takes us back to Square One: needing (an aspect of) ego for daily life. Could someone else give it a shot?

being

Is Buddhism trying to eliminate the ego through meditation?

No. It's a very popular misconception. It arises from the deluded dualistic view of the ego itself, I guess.

What can be 'given up', is the attachment towards thoughts (the ego). When we see clearly, the mind will not claim thoughts as its own nor someone-else's. The thoughts will be seen as just something, which arise - no attachment, no owning, no repression, no resistance. Just thoughts arising.
When we don't see clearly (are unaware), the mind automatically starts identifying everything as ours or not ours and thus an ego (the sense of separation) is created.

compassionate_warrior

What a great answer and explanation! Thank you, being! :clap:

zidangus

This is the definition I have of the Skandhas, I used Wiki for a change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha


Metta to all sentient beings

compassionate_warrior

This is the definition I have of the Skandhas, I used Wiki for a change

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skandha

Same source I used. My questions still stand. We need some of those skandhas to function in daily living. Perhaps the "ego" we're discussing relates to attachment or over-identification with thoughts, emotions, actions, praise, etc., similar to what Being said.

zidangus

I think the article is trying to say that we should destroy the delusion of permanence, eternalness, and independence of the five Skandhas, and not the ego of the "I", which is used in everyday life


Metta to all sentient beings

Jeffrey

Hey I said what being said in the post near fivebells first post. I guess its just my ego speaking to me. Another arising to relax into. :om:

compassionate_warrior

@DD: Maybe just for the sake of discussion, if you could define what you mean by "ego" and how it is obstructive we would understand better. I just get the impression that we may be dealing with differences in the Western definition of ego and the technical Theravada definition of ego. I admit I used the term loosely and without defining it, and from a Western perspective. So if you could shed light on that I'd appreciate it- it would no doubt be helpful to the discussion.

*whew* It only took us two-three days, but we may have a working definition:
Ego of the everyday, functional "I" = ok.
Ego that clings to permanence, pride (thank you, Jeffrey) and independence from the 5 skandhas = to be destroyed.
I'm in agreement with that. Are we all on the same page? (Did I get that right?)

Jeffrey

We don't have to destroy it when it is such good entertainment to unmask it and have a laugh

SherabDorje

I'll buy that, C_W.

compassionate_warrior

So when we're discussing, for the sake of clarity, we can refer to one as the "functional ego", and the other as the "clinging ego",or "Self", unless someone has a better suggestion.
Anyway, pretty much everyone's posts make sense, now that we have these guidelines.

Ric

Im a bit lost, perhaps one of you could share an example of a functional ego and a clinging ego.

Jeffrey

A functional ego says oh I broke my diet but its not the end of the world we can try again. If the superego dominates you go on a trip of how you can never break the diet again and obsess.

A non-functional ego views yourself as a glutton who its impossible for you to eat correctly. Identifying with an image of yourself, a mental formation, as your identity.

compassionate_warrior

Im a bit lost, perhaps one of you could share an example of a functional ego and a clinging ego.

Go back to the 1st half of Pg. 1, Ric, where you said that without ego, how can you push yourself to do your best? The ego that gives us the confidence to tackle tasks or to implement solutions to problems is the "functional ego". We need it for a certain level of basic functioning (though Mr. Hare Krishna in the film might disagree...). The Ego that might insist on taking credit for solving the problem and become boastful is the "clinging ego", the one that says, "This was MY idea, MY effort, I solved the problem". The non-clinging ego offers aid when aid is needed without thinking of itself as a hero or agent. One acts selflessly, because action is required, because a situation demands a solution, not because one wants fame or reward.

Ric

Nice examples. Im on board with you guys. I guess another way to look at it is as a healthy ego and an unhealthy ego.

btw, the guys on the video I used as an example of what I think can go wrong. I def. dont want to end up in India following an old lady

Linc

like Moral_Crusader

Stop goading.

DhammaDhatu

OK :dunce:

DhammaDhatu

...the monks who were not fully realized...

my opinion is you are stretching it a bit here...more like not realised at all

DhammaDhatu

Firstly, "skandha" is a Theravada term, some Mahayanists won't be familiar with it.

"skandha" is a Mahayana term, as found in the Heart Sutra

"kandha" is a Theravada term

DhammaDhatu

No. It's a very popular misconception. It arises from the deluded dualistic view of the ego itself, I guess.

What can be 'given up', is the attachment towards thoughts (the ego).

What a great answer and explanation! Thank you, being! :clap:

It is not really a great answer and explanation. For what reasons:

1. Thought is not the ego. To believe thought is the ego is a very popular misconception. "Ego" is a product of thought but all thought is not ego.

2. One cannot give up attachment to ego because the ego is created by attachment, is inseparable from attachment & is often itself attachment. If there was no attachment then there would be no ego. If there was no ego, there would be no attachment.

"Who, O Lord, clings?"

"The question is not correct," said the Exalted One, "I do not say that 'he clings.' Had I said so, then the question 'Who clings?' would be appropriate. But since I did not speak thus, the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of clinging?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Craving is the condition of clinging; and clinging is the condition of the process of becoming.'

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.012.nypo.html

There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form, feeling,perception, fabricating and/or consciousness to be "the self".

That assumption is a fabrication. Now what is the cause, what is the origination, what is the birth, what is the coming-into-existence of that fabrication?

To an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person, touched by that which is felt born of contact with ignorance, craving arises. That fabrication [of "self"] is born of that.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn22/sn22.081.than.html

Dazzle

Great post to help with clarification, thanks DD.

.

DhammaDhatu

Firstly, "skandha" is a Theravada term, some Mahayanists won't be familiar with it. Secondly, when I looked it up, I found that one of the skandhas was translated as "volition", among other things. Another skandha was translated as "discernment". We need both volition and discernment to function effectively in our daily life, so that takes us back to Square One: needing (an aspect of) ego for daily life. Could someone else give it a shot?

Compassionate_Warrior

You seem to be merely intellectualising about Buddha. The five aggregates are to be known by seeing them. They are not difficult to identify. This is beginning level of practise.

The first aggregate is the physical body.

The second aggregate is the feelings of pleasure & pain that arise from sense experience.

The third aggregate is perception, based in memory. This is labelling, eg, blue, green, dog, cat, tree, etc

The fourth aggregate is called sankhara or mental fabrications & fabricating. This is very diverse and means: defilements, such as greed, hatred & delusion; mature emotions, such as metta & compassion; intention; thought; mental images; hallucinations & fantasies about past lives; intellect, wisdom & ignorance,etc

The fifth aggregate is sense consciousness which facilitates seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching and awareness of mind objects.

None of these things in themselves are an "ego".

An enlightened being does not need ego in their life because when an enlightened being uses the words "I", "me" or "mine" they understand these words are just words; they are just mental fabrications.

DhammaDhatu

Perhaps the "ego" we're discussing relates to attachment or identification with thoughts, emotions, actions, praise, etc.

:clap:

DhammaDhatu

Firstly, "skandha" is a Theravada term, some Mahayanists won't be familiar with it.

:dunce:

The Heart Sutra: Prajna Paramita Hrydaya Sutra

When the Bodhisattva Avalokitesvara
Was Coursing in the Deep Prajna Paramita
He Perceived That All Five Skandhas Are Empty
Thus He Overcame All Ills and Suffering

Form Does not Differ From the Void,
And the Void Does Not Differ From Form.
Form is Void and Void is Form;
The Same is True For Feelings,
Perceptions, Volitions and Consciousness.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartstr.htm

DhammaDhatu

The ego that gives us the confidence to tackle tasks or to implement solutions to problems is the "functional ego".

"Ego" is simply attachment. Confidence comes from 'know how' or wisdom. This is why enlightened beings can live without ego.

For example, supreme athletes or artists function in a sphere beyond ego. They function via pure mind-beyond co-ordination or intelligence because their mind & body has been highly trained

"Ego" is actually the product of a lack of confidence. For example, we try to learn to ride a bicycle or surfboard, but cannot. The ego arises. Then we finally learn. The ego also arises, due to relief.

But once we master the bicycle or surfboard, it is done without ego. For example, elite surfers that enter deep states of concentration when "tube riding" report the ending of their ego.

In short, confidence comes from know-how & wisdom rather than from "ego".

That is my opinion

Jeffrey

DD thought is not ego, but the poster meant that ego is thought. Implicit in that is that the whole notion of it being ego is that there is attachment. If you catch ego as thought then it is no problem.

DhammaDhatu

I guess another way to look at it is as a healthy ego and an unhealthy ego.

Sure, this is a good & wise starting point. The Buddha did not say realising the non-ego was easy

But returning to the video, the ultimate aim is to see there is no real ego. It is ultimately a matter of "seeing" rather than "destroying".

Best wishes

May all "beings" be happy

DhammaDhatu

via pure mind-beyond co-ordination or intelligence

via pure mind-body co-ordination

:dunce:

andyZ

I wanted to comment on the video that was posted by the topicstarter in the first post. That video is not a very good example of letting go of ego, at least not from a point of view as taught in Zen. People in that video replaced one attachment (the self, the ego, the memory of self) with yet another attachment to "no-self", and attachment to an external god. In Zen they teach you to embrace everything about yourself, to study the self, not to renounce the self. There's no constant "ego" or "self" that you can let go of. Everything changes all the time. There's nothing to attach to, nothing to cling to, nothing to define yourself by. Understanding how self is manifested through 5 skandhas is the best way to really understand the self.

zidangus

The Buddha did not say realising the non-ego was easy

But returning to the video, the ultimate aim is to see there is no real ego. It is ultimately a matter of "seeing" rather than "destroying".

Best wishes

May all "beings" be happy

Exactly, well put DD

Metta to all sentient beings

compassionate_warrior

For crying out loud, DD, instead of posting reams of quotes and commentary, could you just give us your definition of ego, in the context of this discussion? A clarification was posted that others were agreeable to. If you want to amend that, just do it, clearly and concisely. Are you capable of being concise? :rolleyes:

SherabDorje

From what I've been able to understand of Dhamma Dhatu's posts, ego is something to be "seen through" as a mental construct. If I understand him right, he is saying that the functional ego without attachment just needs to be seen for what it is, but the ego that adds attachment is something that we need to see ourselves from.

Dakini

From what I've been able to understand of Dhamma Dhatu's posts, ego is something to be "seen through" as a mental construct. If I understand him right, he is saying that the functional ego without attachment just needs to be seen for what it is, but the ego that adds attachment is something that we need to see ourselves from.

Thanks for boiling this down, SD. It sounds like he's saying pretty much the same thing people above already arrived at. It makes sense; as zidangus noted, we need the "I, me, mine" of everyday life (even the Buddha couldn't avoid this) just to function. The constraints of language pretty much require it, for one thing. Shouldn't be a problem if we con't get attached. Most things aren't a problem without attachment. But...we already knew that, didn't we?

Dakini

In view of the definition/understanding that's been worked out, I read the OP question as "Is Buddhism trying to eliminate ego-attachment via meditation" (or other means, as in TB). The answer is "yes". But this doesn't mean Buddhism is trying to eliminate that element in people that motivates them to acquire skills/knowledge and apply them to tasks, whatever we want to call that.

federica

For crying out loud, DD, instead of posting reams of quotes and commentary, could you just give us your definition of ego, in the context of this discussion? A clarification was posted that others were agreeable to. If you want to amend that, just do it, clearly and concisely. Are you capable of being concise? :rolleyes:

There are ways of asking without resorting to impatience or aggravation.
Others seem to have understood perfectly well....

Dakini

Others seem to have understood perfectly well....

I didn't. I found the barrage of material overwhelming. I never would have interpreted it as SherabDorje did; that DD was saying something close to what had already been arrived at. The clarification was necessary and welcome, IMO.

federica

My main point was the tone adopted.
I didn't say everybody else understood it perfectly well, I said others understood perfectly well. Hence their clarifying for those who obviously didn't.

Sabre

Whatever we declare to be the ego, It's clear ones thoughts or a whole person doesn't just disappear after enlightenment. The Buddha still lived for many years after his enlightenment with the most amazingly structured teachings I've seen in any religion. I'd say you need a strong mind to be able to do that

taiyaki

the only difference between a buddha and a normal person is that the buddha doesn't attach to his/her thoughts, feelings, beliefs.

there is no ego. there is no ego to lose. there is no ego to gain.
you are grasping at space and trying to do the impossible.

so imagine thinking without attaching to words. imagine feeling without attachment to feelings. imagine beliefs without attachment to beliefs.

basically the buddha says something but he isn't saying it because he doesn't attach to what he says.
the buddha feels but isn't feeling because he doesn't attach to what he feels.
the buddha believes but isn't believing because he doesn't attach to beliefs.

the buddha stands no where, thus he stands everywhere.

grasping or attaching is the function of ego. Thoughts, feelings, beliefs are all empty of inherent existence.

lol

federica

'lol' indeed.....!

compassionate_warrior

the only difference between a buddha and a normal person is that the buddha doesn't attach to his/her thoughts, feelings, beliefs.

I'd say one main difference between /the/ Buddha and a normal (="average"?) person is that the Buddha had well above-average intelligence.

basically the buddha says something but he isn't saying it because he doesn't attach to what he says.
the buddha feels but isn't feeling because he doesn't attach to what he feels.
the buddha believes but isn't believing because he doesn't attach to beliefs.

Whether or not he attaches doesn't alter the fact that he's saying something. It's the body/mind widely recognized as the Buddha doing the speaking. Who else would it be? :wtf: The teachings in the suttras are ascribed to him.

federica

So many comments have been flagged in this thread, I'm afraid I'm going to close it. The more it goes on, the more comments and flaggs it will receive.
if anyone is interested in engaging another member privately, to continue discussion, feel free.
But I'm calling it a day.
For a thread on ego and Buddhism, there are an awful lot of egos being bruised and giving voice.
And call that my ego if you like, but hey - it's my job.

Thanks to all.